EXCLUSIVE Now woke scientists want to rename World Milk Day 'Bovine Mammary Secretion Day'
The awareness day, introduced by the United Nations in 2001, aims to highlight milk as a 'vital, accessible food source that nourishes billions'.
But one group who won't be celebrating are PETA, who are calling for the name of the day to be changed.
A more fitting title, they argue, is 'World Bovine Mammary Secretion Day'.
In a letter, written to the Food and Agriculture Organization, they point out that cows secrete milk to feed their offspring in the same way as humans.
However, calves in the dairy industry are removed from their mothers, often very shortly after birth, so that 'the milk meant to nourish them can be stolen and sold to humans'.
'This rebrand reflects the fact that cows don't make milk because they're cows, but because they are mothers,' writes PETA Vice President of Programmes Elisa Allen.
'What you call a 'global food' is really a food intended for baby cows and bulls only.'
PETA – which stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals – also argue the dairy industry releases massive amounts of greenhouse gases.
Their letter reads: 'As World Milk Day aims, in part, to 'spread the word about dairy', we'd like to propose a re-brand which would help you do just this by making clear what the white stuff from a cow really is: change the name of the awareness day to 'World Bovine Mammary Secretion Day'.
'Cows' secretions aren't meant for humans any more than those of dogs or cockroaches are, but, thanks to human demand for their mothers' mammary secretions, calves are denied nutrients and the maternal bond forged when a mother feeds her infant.
'Cows used by the dairy industry are forcibly inseminated repeatedly – often using what industry insiders have called a 'rape rack' – to ensure a steady supply of milk, which a cow produces only after she gives birth.
'But, often within hours or a day of birth, those babies are taken, causing both mother and child extreme distress.
'Males are usually sold for veal, while daughters follow in their mothers' sad footsteps.'
They said that cows are repeatedly – usually mechanically- milked, and many develop painful udder infections as a result.
'Consumers deserve to make informed choices and to know what they're drinking,' Ms Allen added.
The letter, from PETA Vice President of Programmes Elisa Allen to the Food and Agriculture Organization, in full
'So far, dairy marketing has been as opaque as the product itself, but rebranding June 1 as 'World Bovine Mammary Secretion Day' can end this whitewashing, instead revealing that what most call 'milk' is really secretions extracted from exploited, unwell, and grieving mothers.'
Earlier this year, PETA argued the definition of 'rat' should be changed in the Cambridge Dictionary.
In a letter to its editor, the organisation said that when the term is used in reference to a human it depicts an 'unfair' representation of the small, furry mammal.
It reads: 'We're writing on behalf of rats and those who care about them – as well as anyone who appreciates accuracy in language – to ask that you please update your entry for the informal noun "rat", currently defined as "an unpleasant person who deceives others or is not loyal".
They have also previously called on posh decorating range Farrow & Ball to rename animal-themed paints such as 'Dead Salmon' to make them more 'vegan friendly'.
Other paint names they want changed include 'Smoked Trout' and 'Potted Shrimp'.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF FARMING COWS
The livestock animals are notorious for creating large amounts of methane, which is a major contributor to global warming.
Each of the farm animals produces the equivalent of three tonnes of carbon dioxide per year and the amount of the animals is increasing with the growing need to feed a booming population.
Methane is one of the most potent greenhouse gases, trapping 30 times more heat than the same amount of carbon dioxide.
Scientists are investigating how feeding them various diets can make cattle more climate-friendly.
They believe feeding seaweed to dairy cows may help and are also using a herb-rich foodstuff called the Lindhof sample.
Researchers found a cow's methane emissions were reduced by more than 30 per cent when they ate ocean algae.
In research conducted by the University of California, in August, small amounts of it were mixed into the animals' feed and sweetened with molasses to disguise the salty taste.
As a result, methane emissions dropped by almost a third.
'I was extremely surprised when I saw the results,' said Professor Ermias Kebreab, the animal scientist who led the study.
'I wasn't expecting it to be that dramatic with a small amount of seaweed.'
The team now plans to conduct a further six-month study of a seaweed-infused diet in beef cattle, starting this month.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Why antibiotics are like fossil fuels
In 1954, just a few years after the widespread introduction of antibiotics, doctors were already aware of the problem of resistance. Natural selection meant that using these new medicines gave an advantage to the microbes that could survive the assault – and a treatment that worked today could become ineffective tomorrow. A British doctor put the challenge in military terms: 'We may run clean out of effective ammunition. Then how the bacteria and moulds will lord it.' More than 70 years later, that concern looks prescient. The UN has called antibiotic resistance 'one of the most urgent global health threats'. Researchers estimate that resistance already kills more than a million people a year, with that number forecast to grow. And new antibiotics are not being discovered fast enough; many that are essential today were discovered more than 60 years ago. The thing to remember is that antibiotics are quite unlike other medicines. Most drugs work by manipulating human biology: paracetamol relieves your headache by dampening the chemical signals of pain; caffeine blocks adenosine receptors and as a result prevents drowsiness taking hold. Antibiotics, meanwhile, target bacteria. And, because bacteria spread between people, the challenge of resistance is social: it's as if every time you took a painkiller for your headache, you increased the chance that somebody else might have to undergo an operation without anaesthetic. That makes resistance more than simply a technological problem. But like that British doctor in 1954, we still often talk as if it is: we need to invent new 'weapons' to better defend ourselves. What this framing overlooks is that the extraordinary power of antibiotics is not due to human ingenuity. In fact, the majority of them derive from substances originally made by bacteria and fungi, evolved millions of years ago in a process of microbial competition. This is where I can't help thinking about another natural resource that helped create the modern world but has also been dangerously overused: fossil fuels. Just as Earth's geological forces turned dead plants from the Carboniferous era into layers of coal and oil that we could burn for energy, so evolution created molecules that scientists in the 20th century were able to recruit to keep us alive. Both have offered an illusory promise of cheap, miraculous and never-ending power over nature – a promise that is now coming to an end. If we thought of antibiotics as the 'fossil fuels' of modern medicine, might that change how we use them? And could it help us think of ways to make the fight against life-threatening infections more sustainable? The antibiotic era is less than a century old. Alexander Fleming first noticed the activity of a strange mould against bacteria in 1928, but it wasn't until the late 1930s that the active ingredient – penicillin – was isolated. A daily dose was just 60mg, about the same as a pinch of salt. For several years it was so scarce it was worth more than gold. But after production was scaled up during the second world war, it ended up costing less than the bottle it came in. This abundance did more than tackle infectious diseases. Just as the energy from fossil fuels transformed society, antibiotics allowed the entire edifice of modern medicine to be built. Consider surgery: cutting people open and breaking the protective barrier of the skin gives bacteria the chance to swarm into the body's internal tissues. Before antibiotics, even the simplest procedures frequently resulted in fatal blood poisoning. After them, so much more became possible: heart surgery, intestinal surgery, transplantation. Then there's cancer: chemotherapy suppresses the immune system, making bacterial infections one of the most widespread complications of treatment. The effects of antibiotics have rippled out even further: they made factory farming possible, both by reducing disease among animals kept in close quarters, and by increasing their weight through complex effects on metabolism. They're one of the reasons for the huge increase in meat consumption since the 1950s, with all its concomitant welfare and environmental effects. Despite the crisis of resistance, antibiotics remain cheap compared with other medicines. Partly – as with fossil fuels – this is because the negative consequences of their use (so-called externalities) are not priced in. And like coal, oil and gas, antibiotics lead to pollution. One recent study estimated that 31% of the 40 most used antibiotics worldwide enter rivers. Once they're out there, they increase levels of resistance in environmental bacteria: one study of soil from the Netherlands showed that the incidence of some antibiotic-resistant genes had increased by more than 15 times since the 1970s. Another source of pollution is manufacturing, particularly in countries such as India. In Hyderabad, where factories produce huge amounts of antibiotics for the global market, scientists have found that the wastewater contains levels of some antibiotics that are a million times higher than elsewhere. Like the climate crisis, antibiotic resistance has laid global inequalities bare. Some high-income countries have taken steps to decrease antibiotic use, but only after benefiting from their abundance in the past. That makes it hard for them to take a moral stand against their use in other places, a dilemma that mirrors the situation faced by post-industrial nations urging developing nations to forgo the economic benefits of cheap energy. This may be where the similarities end. While we look forward to the day when fossil fuels are phased out completely, that's clearly not the case with antibiotics, which are always going to be part of medicine's 'energy mix'. After all, most deaths from bacterial disease worldwide are due to lack of access to antibiotics, not resistance. What we are going to need to do is make our approach to development and use much more sustainable. Currently, many pharmaceutical companies have abandoned the search for new antibiotics: it's hard to imagine a more perfect anti-capitalist commodity than a product whose value depletes every time you use it. That means we need alternative models. One proposal is for governments to fund an international institute that develops publicly owned antibiotics, rather than relying on the private sector; another is to incentivise development with generously funded prizes for antibiotic discovery. And to address the issue of overuse, economists have suggested that health authorities could run 'subscription' models that remove the incentive to sell lots of antibiotics. In one pilot scheme in England, two companies are being paid a set amount per year by the NHS, regardless of how much of their product is actually used. Finally, we have to remember that antibiotics aren't the only game in town. Supporting other, 'renewable' approaches means we get to use the ones we do have for longer. Vaccines are vital to disease prevention – with every meningitis, diphtheria or whooping cough vaccine meaning a potential course of antibiotics forgone. And the 20th century's largest reductions in infectious disease occurred not because of antibiotics, but thanks to better sanitation and public health. (Even in the 2000s, the threat of MRSA was addressed with tried-and-tested methods such as handwashing and cleaning protocols – not new antibiotics.) Given that antibiotics themselves emerged unexpectedly, we should also be investing more in blue-skies research. Just as we no longer burn coal without a thought for the consequences, the era of carefree antibiotic use is now firmly in the past. In both cases, the idea that there wouldn't be a reckoning was always an illusion. But as with our slow waking up to the reality of the climate crisis, coming to appreciate the limits of our love affair with antibiotics may ultimately be no bad thing. Liam Shaw is a biologist at the University of Oxford, and author of Dangerous Miracle (Bodley Head). Being Mortal: Medicine and What Matters in the End by Atul Gawande (Profile, £11.99) Infectious: Pathogens and How We Fight Them by John S Tregoning (Oneworld, £10.99) Deadly Companions: How Microbes Shaped our History by Dorothy H Crawford (Oxford, £12.49)
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
How to heal heartburn WITHOUT drugs: Acid reflux pills taken by millions cause crippling side-effects and are even linked to cancer and dementia. Now doctors reveal what to do
It is the uncomfortable chest pain that nearly half of us will experience at some point – and for many, it can be completely debilitating. The most recognisable symptom of acid reflux is a burning sensation when stomach acid leaks up into the oesophagus and throat – which is why it's often referred to as heartburn. But the condition can also trigger nausea, a sore throat and cough, bloating and bad breath. For years, GPs have relied on a go-to treatment: a type of drug called a proton pump inhibitor, or PPI, which reduces the amount of acid produced in the stomach. The most widely used, omeprazole, costs as little as 15p a pill and is remarkably effective.
ITV News
2 hours ago
- ITV News
Dozens arrested in Israel as striking protesters demand ceasefire and hostage release
Police in Israel have arrested at least 32 people protesting for the release of remaining hostages held by Hamas and demanding a ceasefire in the war in Gaza. Striking protesters blocked traffic and closed businesses, weeks after militant groups released videos of hostages and the Israeli government announced plans for a new offensive in Gaza. The so-called 'day of stoppage' was organized by two groups representing some of the families of hostages and bereaved families. Demonstrations were staged outside politicians' homes, military headquarters and on major roads. Gathering throughout the country, protesters chanted: 'We don't win a war over the bodies of hostages.' 'Military pressure doesn't bring hostages back - it only kills them,' former hostage Arbel Yehoud said at a demonstration in Tel Aviv 's hostage square. 'The only way to bring them back is through a deal, all at once, without games.' Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced his plan to take over Gaza City on August 8, as well as confirming he "intends to" take over the whole Gaza Strip. The Israeli military has repeatedly bombarded Gaza City and launched major ground operations there, destroying several neighbourhoods. Most of Gaza's population of two million is sheltering in Gaza City after returning to the city during a ceasefire at the start of this year. Israel's air and ground war has already killed tens of thousands of people in Gaza and displaced most of the population. The United Nations is warning that levels of starvation and malnutrition in Gaza are at their highest since the war began. The Hamas-led attack in 2023 killed around 1,200 people in Israel. Israel's retaliatory offensive has killed 61,897 people in Gaza, according to the Health Ministry, which does not specify how many were fighters or civilians but says around half were women and children.
